4 ms·

So uhm, can/should we start cutting these proviruses(?) out of our genomes? Unintended consequences?

by im3w1l 2y ago

Feuilles_Mortes 2y ago
Definitely not. Current estimates put viral DNA at about 8% of the human genome.
- im3w1l 2y ago
  Would it be possible to consider them separately though? Like maybe it will turn out that say 10% of them are beneficial, 65% of them are neutral (either they do nothing at all or a mixture of benefit and harm), and 25% are slightly bad for us (can't be too harmful or we would have already known ig).
  - biophysboy 2y ago
    Delivering gene therapies into brain cells is a non-trivial task. Also, there's alternatives to cutting the original sequence out; you can also dampen the transcribed RNA with downstream therapies.
    - suoduandao3 2y ago
      I thought this was more of a 'designer babies' suggestion than a 'mess with the source code after it's finished compiling' one.
  - AdamN 2y ago
    'Bad' is notoriously hard to figure out. It might be good for the group to have a few people with major psychiatric disorders even if it's not ideal for that individual or the people who have to directly interact with them.
COGlory 2y ago
We can't (currently) cut them out because there's too many cells and they're brain cells. But if we could make complementary RNA, that could potentially neutralize them.
lm28469 2y ago
I love humans, we discover a new interesting thing, think we're big boys who understand everything there is to understand and that we can shape things to our will with no adverse consequences That's how we got asbestos in walls, lead in gas/paint, freon, pfas, &c. The same story over and over and over again. But sure go ahead and start slicing our dna, what could possibly go wrong?
- im3w1l 2y ago
  Of course there are risks. The question is how big the risk is, and how well we can mitigate it.
- pyronik19 2y ago
  And antibiotics, computers, fertilizer, electricity, cars, stem cells, etc Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind, but ludditism also isn't the answer.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > And antibiotics, computers, fertilizer, electricity, cars, stem cells, etc What did it bring ? At what cost ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      The Holocene extinction was started when pointed sticks were state of the art and we ate most megafauna to extinction. It would be more the Anthropocene to blame if anything. Blaming high technology is thus rather anachronistic. Personally I'm of the opinion that the world was already on fire as it were, what with the mass extinctions caused when we became an invasive species out of Africa. If we were still stuck in the stone age like our predecessors we would still be an ongoing mass-extinction. There is some hope to eventually not be an ongoing mass extinction but that would require some combination of even better technology and the right priorities.
- Turing_Machine 2y ago
Terr_ 2y ago
A gene-editing inquisition against anything viral could definitely go too far. For example, we already know of syncytin [0], a protein essential for normal reproduction (placental formation) which is encoded by an ancient proviral genes. Let's imagine some antiviral inquisitors who are either ignorant of that fact, or else operate in a world where there are very similar genes that haven't been discovered. If they were editing gametes/embryos, they'd probably discover the problem quite quickly, and either make an exception or abandon their work. However if they were enacting some kind of retroviral edit on adults (which would be kinda-hypocritical) then things might look fine for a little bit... until someone realizes that there are no more babies anymore and the population is going to go extinct without a fix. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytin-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytin-1

So uhm, can/should we start cutting these proviruses(?) out of our genomes? Unintended consequences?

by im3w1l 2y ago

So uhm, can/should we start cutting these proviruses(?) out of our genomes? Unintended consequences?

Feuilles_Mortes 2y ago

Definitely not. Current estimates put viral DNA at about 8% of the human genome.

im3w1l 2y ago
Would it be possible to consider them separately though? Like maybe it will turn out that say 10% of them are beneficial, 65% of them are neutral (either they do nothing at all or a mixture of benefit and harm), and 25% are slightly bad for us (can't be too harmful or we would have already known ig).
- biophysboy 2y ago
  Delivering gene therapies into brain cells is a non-trivial task. Also, there's alternatives to cutting the original sequence out; you can also dampen the transcribed RNA with downstream therapies.
  - suoduandao3 2y ago
    I thought this was more of a 'designer babies' suggestion than a 'mess with the source code after it's finished compiling' one.
- AdamN 2y ago
  'Bad' is notoriously hard to figure out. It might be good for the group to have a few people with major psychiatric disorders even if it's not ideal for that individual or the people who have to directly interact with them.

COGlory 2y ago

We can't (currently) cut them out because there's too many cells and they're brain cells. But if we could make complementary RNA, that could potentially neutralize them.

lm28469 2y ago

I love humans, we discover a new interesting thing, think we're big boys who understand everything there is to understand and that we can shape things to our will with no adverse consequences That's how we got asbestos in walls, lead in gas/paint, freon, pfas, &c. The same story over and over and over again. But sure go ahead and start slicing our dna, what could possibly go wrong?

im3w1l 2y ago
Of course there are risks. The question is how big the risk is, and how well we can mitigate it.
pyronik19 2y ago
And antibiotics, computers, fertilizer, electricity, cars, stem cells, etc Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind, but ludditism also isn't the answer.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > And antibiotics, computers, fertilizer, electricity, cars, stem cells, etc What did it bring ? At what cost ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    The Holocene extinction was started when pointed sticks were state of the art and we ate most megafauna to extinction. It would be more the Anthropocene to blame if anything. Blaming high technology is thus rather anachronistic. Personally I'm of the opinion that the world was already on fire as it were, what with the mass extinctions caused when we became an invasive species out of Africa. If we were still stuck in the stone age like our predecessors we would still be an ongoing mass-extinction. There is some hope to eventually not be an ongoing mass extinction but that would require some combination of even better technology and the right priorities.
Turing_Machine 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

A gene-editing inquisition against anything viral could definitely go too far. For example, we already know of syncytin [0], a protein essential for normal reproduction (placental formation) which is encoded by an ancient proviral genes. Let's imagine some antiviral inquisitors who are either ignorant of that fact, or else operate in a world where there are very similar genes that haven't been discovered. If they were editing gametes/embryos, they'd probably discover the problem quite quickly, and either make an exception or abandon their work. However if they were enacting some kind of retroviral edit on adults (which would be kinda-hypocritical) then things might look fine for a little bit... until someone realizes that there are no more babies anymore and the population is going to go extinct without a fix. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytin-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytin-1